Posted
by
Soulskillon Tuesday February 21, 2012 @04:04PM
from the kids-break-the-darnedest-things dept.

caseih writes "Damaging the embedded chip in your passport is now grounds for denying you the ability to travel in at least one airport in the U.S. Though the airport can slide the passport through the little number reader as easily as they can wave it in front of an RFID reader, they chose to deny a young child access to the flight, in essence denying the whole family. The child had accidentally sat on his passport, creasing the cover, and the passport appeared worn. The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport."

It does make a difference. For all the complaining that the corporations and the government are the same, it's a lot easier to get corporate policy changed than government. If this brings enough attention, the airline may choose to clarify its policy or retrain the individual who refused to accept the passport.

There are times when the letter of corporate policy should give way to good customer service.

I get good customer service from airlines on a regular basis. For the most recent example, because TSA made us miss our flight by ten seconds (we were at the airport an hour before the flight and the door closed that long before we were able to run up to the kiosk), three United gate reps worked to get us booked on other Star Alliance flights (and even offered to go to other airlines at one point though the odds were no better). It took the better part of two hours to get things worked out and we flew standby twice, but they went far above and beyond what was necessary.

I have also walked up to the gate when it's not crowded and asked if there were any better seats than I'd been assigned or even selected and been provided Economy Plus without extra charge on two or three occasions even without being a serious frequent flyer. My fiancee who has back problems and migraines from a military injury is regularly able to get handicap boarding on just her word, though she carries her placard and paperwork with her for backup just in case.

I sympathize with the airline staff. They have to deal with surly customers who start with the presumption that the airlines are out to get them. I start with the presumption that the people behind the desk are just trying to do their job as best they can (usually right, sometimes wrong) and I get much further with that.

This is the way to do it, people. Generally, if you go to them with a positive attitude, explain your situation calmly, they'll try to help you. What you normally see is people flipping their shit at the very first sign of an inconvenience, which just sets up an adversarial attitude.

And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

And the worst part is, you and I need to vote for him next time, too, because Frothy isn't even pretending to want to restore our civil liberties, instead gleefully enumerating what new restrictions he wants to place on the American people in the name of a "better society" or whatever. (Seriously, the legality of contraception stopped being a topic of political debate in the late sixties. What the hell is going on?)

Ahh, the sharp difference between "bad" and "worse". A two-party system has to be at least twice as good as one-party rule, right?

"The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations..."Catholic-affiliated. Not churches, but hospitals, etc. A person who works at a Catholic church has to be Catholic. A person who works for a Catholic-affiliated hospital - doesn't have to, and has the right for such a policy.

How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

I have less than zero sympathy, because I was forced to pay for the invasion of Iraq, with all the subsequent aftermath of at least 4 million people displaced from their homes, hundreds of thousands killed, worse living conditions than before, and women's rights brought down to the standard of other countries in the region.

And I'm supposed to support Catholic organizations' mission to deny birth control coverage for their employees? Not gonna happen.

How did this get labeled Insightful? The Federal Government is requiring many Catholic organizations to provide contraception in the policies they provide their employees. Because these organizations pay at least partially for these policies, they are being required to pay for contraception. The slimy move to say it doesn't have to be in the policy, but has to be provided for free it just bull and every one knows it.

The original set of rules were already in place in California, and the Catholic Church attempted to fight a legal battle over it. They got all the way to the Federal District Appeals, and were shot down. The Supreme Court denied them a writ to hear the case.

The actual original conditions require Catholics who are not hiring predominantly other Catholics, who do not service predominantly other Catholics, and a few other reasonable conditions to cover birth control for their employees. This means, that if a Catholic organization, goes out and hires atheists, protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, and Wiccans, that they would have been forced (just like every other public employer) to provide birth control for those individuals.

These Catholic organizations, which would have been required to provide birth control, do not feel that sharing their faith is necessary to be employed by them, so they should be treated just like any other employer. I don't care if your organization is "based on religious ideas", if you're practicing secular employment, then you cannot bring up your religious ideas to justify discrimination of those employees. You yourself have already chosen to eschew your religious employment grounds.

The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.

So to lure to employees and doge some taxes employers started offering to pay for medial insurance. The insurance companies like that and encouraged it because it made their administration simpler and eliminated their need to go try and figure out how to market to individuals. To keep the practice intact they came up with this whole stupid system of groups rates etc etc.

A better solution would be to all compensation is taxable as income (and lower the over all tax rate accordingly). That would remove the incentive for employees to seek employers offering health insurance and for employers to offer it. It would remove this whole issue of religious freedom, because once its your money its yours to do with as you like. You want to buy a policy that covers contraception great, you want one that does not cover it you find a provider who offers it.

The final solution over all is force insurance companies to be insurance companies and end the heal management regime. You obligate medical practitioners (doctors) and providers (hospitals, nursing homes, etc) to publish a price book (prices can be whatever they like) on some periodic basis. Everyone MUST be charged the same rate. Big Insurance Inc cannot negotiate special rates where they pay $40 for a patient to receive a few stitches at the ER but if I show up without insurance and offer to pay cash the price is $1200 (true story). At that point insurance companies are forced back into the risk sharing game an could only add cost to the patient in terms of overhead to basic care / services. You reason for buying insurance would be the same reason you buy home owners, not because you want them to cut your law every week but because you want to be covered in the event something disastrous happens.

Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

I'm sorry, but if you were foolish enough in 2008 to see him as anything but what he is -- yet another (Chicago, even!) politician, you're kinda gullible (or, at least, insufficiently cynical.) (Don't worry, I fell for Bush 2000 myself, so I'm right there with you in the gullible camp.)

How am I supposed to vote?!?!?

Well, you could start by figuring out how to vote in the Republican primaries and voting for Paul. If Paul isn't palatable for you, there are plenty of other parties and candidates; chances are very good that you can find someone that you pretty well agree with out there somewhere.

To the sibling poster who claims that you "need to vote for him the next time, too", that's patently ridiculous. There are plenty of candidates for president who actually make a *credible* claim that they'll fight to restore our constitutionally-enshrined rights. Yes, they aren't likely to win, but I swear I'll go all medieval on you if you claim that I am throwing away my vote by voting for someone who believes as I do instead of voting for someone who I disagree slightly less with but is more likely to win.

Some of them are screwballs, some of them look fairly compelling, particularly for single-issue voters. None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014.:)

And then you still get screwed when the 6 people who voted for the fringe guy are outnumbered by the 100 million who elect SantRomObama.

Are you people not reading what I write? Oh right; of course not. I forgot this is Slashdot... Silly me. Let me respond to your statement by quoting what you replied to:

None of them have a good chance of winning, but that's OK, your vote is so infinitesimally likely to make a difference in the race between the two parties anyway. Vote your conscience, that's the only way to be hold your head high and mutter "I told you so" in 2014.:)

this is a large part of the reason I'm a Paul supporter -- he actually has a long voting history that almost invariably matches his rhetoric.

I highly admire that fact -- if only we had more honest politicians like Ron Paul...
But he is planning to eliminate IRS, Dept. of Public Health, public schools, etc. How far can one get with that plan? Having principles is good. Not being realistic is bad.

He plans to eliminate the Department of Education. In the 200 years before the Department of Education was established, the fine public schools of our country produced millions of brilliant scientists, artists, and freethinkers. I think our public schools will do fine without the Department of Education, considering that every state already has its own Department of Education.

And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.

How am I supposed to vote?!?!? Let me be clear: I voted for Obama because Obama promised to roll back the damage done by Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales to rights such as habeas corpus. Obama failed to keep his promises, choosing instead to continue in lockstep with those evil bastards. Don't blame me - I voted the best that I knew how to try to correct egregious wrongs - blame the politicians.

You should vote against both Kang and Kodos.

Voting anything but a 3rd party (or independent) is perpetuating the system.

Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.

You can't have third parties with first past the post voting. It doesn't work. It isn't politics, it's math. Two similar candidates that together have 51%+ of the vote when one alone doesn't will always do better to combine forces, and they always will, unless one of them is being irrational (like Ralph Nader), in which case that candidate becomes a pariah for handing the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" is not a slogan, it's a mathematical fact.

If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.

Voting independent is worse than perpetuating the system. It's perpetuating the system while allowing the greater of two evils to win.

In all presidential elections, the electoral college votes for my state will go to the Democrats. Same for the vast majority of the congressional elections - the seat for that district will go to which ever party it was gerrymandered in favor of. In rare cases where there is actually a close race, then voting for the lesser of two evils may make sense. The rest of the time your vote does nothing but send a signal about how strongly supported the winner is, and to whom they need to pander to win the election next time around. Voting third party sends a better signal than voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all.

If you want to change the system, vote in the primaries (and I mean for Congress, not just for President), before all the candidates worth voting for get eliminated.

I do, but the system is just as stacked against them as it is against the third parties. So after casting my token vote for the "fringe" candidates in the primaries, I cast another token vote for third party candidates in the actual election.

Yes, it matter a great deal, especially when people still make the poor argument that "teh marketz R wize" and "gubmint iz bad". This was a case of a company (American Airlines, with a history of mistreating customers and PR issues - like most airlines out there) once again trampling on its customers. Its important to assign blame where it belongs.

It's important because this should make you reconsider flying on American Airlines.They were the ones who disrupted the family's trip in this case (Luckily they were on their way OUT of the country. I'd hate to see the same thing happen to someone trying to come back in).

But the American Airlines official was reacting to the general fears that the TSA and the Federal Government have been instilling in us the past 10 years, so I wouldn't call them without blame

The right to travel, the right to leave any country, and the right to return to your own country are fundamental human rights defined by the UDHR. These rights may not be respected, but that doesn't change their nature as rights.

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

Last time I did that to an expiring credit card, the RFID chip literally smoked, resulting in very visible exterior damage. It might be possible to do this without scorching the chip, but I'm not sure I'd chance it. A careful blow with a hammer against something hard and flat would probably be a better way....

Although "adding a computer" did cause this problem. It caused a simple bit of robust technology to suddenly become exceptionally prone to failure. It created a problem where one did not previously exist.

If the information on a pre-RFID passport is sufficient for international travel -- which it presumably is, since I and millions of others still travel with them -- then an RFID-equipped passport with a non-functioning RFID chip that hasn't been otherwise defaced also has enough information. You could make the case that he should be prevented from traveling if it was obviously intentionally damaged, but it's certainly not lacking any necessary photographic or other identifying information if it's just the RFID chip that's damaged.

Q:My passport has been damaged. Can I continue to use this passport?
a:If your passport has been significantly damaged, especially the book cover or the page displaying your personal data and photo, you will need to apply for a new passport. You will need to submit the following in person (See Where to Apply):

The damaged passport
Form DS-11
All documents required by Form DS-11, including citizenship documentation (i.e. birth certificate)

Water damage, a significant tear, unofficial markings on the data page, missing visa pages (torn out), a hole punch and other injuries may constitute "damage" requiring use of Form DS-11.

Normal wear of a U.S. passport is understandable and likely does not constitute "damage". For instance, the expected bend of a passport after being carried in your back pocket or fanning of the visa pages after extensive opening and closing. In most cases of normal wear, you may renew your passport by mail using Form DS-82.

Please remember, if you try to renew a significantly damaged passport using Form DS-82, you may be asked by the Passport Agency to apply again using Form DS-11 and incur additional fees./

Ray Priest, owner of International Passport Visas in Denver, said your passport isn’t actually yours at all; it belongs to the US government.

“To have a passport is privilege, it’s not entitled to you by citizenship,” Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. “They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it’s been damaged,” Priest said. “It’s like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn’t work.”

These people wanted to leave the country. By no means should we ever prevent someone from exiting when they want to, passport or not. If you don't have a passport, just don't expect to return.

The governments you reference required special travel documents to be allowed to change postcodes. Meanwhile, you can cross six time zones from San Juan to Honolulu without having to tell anybody, let alone ask permission. Unless, of course, you're worried about the jackbooted thugs of the Department of Agriculture...

I believe that the right to leave a country is one of those rights that the UN has officially declared sacrosanct -- no matter who you are, or which country you're a citizen of (or if you're not a citizen of anywhere), you have the right to exit whatever country you're in (unless you've broken that country's laws). If you're a US citizen who wants to head to China, the US government can't stop you; only the Chinese government can.

Assuming the Cubans will let you in, you can go to Cuba as an American. US companies aren't allowed to provide you transport, but you certainly could route through Jamaica, Mexico City, or Montreal and get to Havana with little trouble.

Coming back, expect extra questions at customs about the Cuban stamp in your passport, but otherwise the US government isn't going to prevent you from going there.

You can't be denied a passport in order to return the the US. You can be denied a passport in order to leave.

It's a specific exemption on the criteria to deny a passport (22 C.F.R. S 51.70):

A passport, except for direct return to the United States, shall not be issued in any case in which the Secretary of State determines or is informed by competent authority that:[list of criteria to deny a passport]

If you're a US citizen, and go to a US-Canada border crossing, it's a Canadian official, not a US official, that checks your passport. The passport is to help you get permission from the Canadians to enter their country, not to get permission from the US to leave. The reason airlines check passports before boarding international flights is to prevent a situation where somebody flies from the US to, say, France, and then is denied entry to France and has to either turn around and go back or create a bunch of work for the nearest US consulate. It actually makes some sense.

Of course, where this gets tricky is if the Canadians and Mexicans sign agreements with the US that say they won't let any US citizens over the border without a passport.

While the airline likely won't let you board their aircraft without a passport, it's not required to enter your nation of citizenship (not for the USA and Canada, anyway). If you manage to present yourself at *your own* nation's border, the agents will let you in once they've managed to confirm your citizenship via an alternate means. It might take a while, but if you're a citizen, they'll let you in. It's getting to that border itself that can s

The guy who was talking all the smack, who said: "To have a passport is privilege, it's not entitled to you by citizenship," Priest said. He said the issue may be with a microchip embedded in the back of all new passports. "They have no reason in the world to let you travel if it's been damaged," Priest said. "It's like cutting your photo out or something if that chip doesn't work." is the same guy who is rated A- by the BBB for several complains. His contact info at BBB is at http://www.bbb.org/denver/business-reviews/passport-and-visa-services/international-passport-visas-in-denver-co-8845 [bbb.org]

And he's basically an idiot. My passport got pretty well trashed after a camping / climbing trip in South America. When I got back the customs guy said 'looked like you had fun'. The RFID didn't work (or the reader, it wasn't clear), so he looked at the passport briefly and let me through.

I put mine through a washing machine and all the pages ended up melded together. I separated what I could (including the important back page) with a knife and then ironed it flat. (Interestingly it had washed out all the visa stamps so it looked like new).

Got from one side of Europe to the other on that passport without a problem. Worst I got was a smirk.

VERY important distinction. From what I understand, the US government cannot deny a citizen entry once the citizen has provided bona fides. The government may hold the citizen for questioning, but is afforded all rights and privileges provided by the constitution.

The problem is that airline officials or anyone else in charge of letting you get on a plane is apparently *allowed* to make a judgment call like this at any airport along your route. If I'm going to be stopped for some stupid random thing like this (and it is a stupid random thing), I'm going to be a lot less pissed off if it means I can't get on the flight at my home airport, and have a way home, than if it means I've gotten halfway across the country 500-1000 miles from home and then all of a sudden can't fly anywhere and I have no surface transportation home or shipping for my checked baggage. One reason I don't fly when i can avoid it is unpredictability of what will be flagged in security at any given airport, plus the ease with which it's possible for a social outlier like me to become a "suspicious person" and subject to all of the treatment that triggers.

Now, that may be hard to avoid for international flights where the airport of departure from the country isn't my home airport, but if an airline official is going to pull a dickish move like this, the least he/she can do is refund my international ticket and comp me a *domestic* flight back home, plus waivers on any extra fees to route my checked baggage home as well. Not sure if they were offered that as well as the option to stay in a hotel while the passport snafu is straightened out, but I do wonder..

Why, oh WHY on earth? Maybe it's because my experience with American is largely limited to flying into Haiti and coast-to-coast, but it's invariably a horrendous experience. Especially when compared to carriers like Southwest, who actually "gets" customer service.

In fact, I flew American back in January, and my Facebook status briefly said: "I am not in any way surprised that American Airlines is in bankruptcy."

You don't need a passport for flying within the US. Technically, you don't even need a passport for leaving the US, but if you don't have one, it becomes very difficult to re-enter.

The proper way to handle this would've been to inform them that they need to get the passport repaired or risk facing excessive scrutiny on their return. Some officials involved and quoted in the article need to be replaced.

Depends on the country... There are a lot of countries that recognize each others driver's licenses as proof or that don't require any documents when traveling between them (see all of the EU). For a long time you could travel between Canada and US with only a drivers license or a birth certificate.

You only need the Visa if you plan on working there. The passport's enough for a visit.

That depends on the country. Many countries grant Americans an implicit visa to travel there for tourism for a specific period of time, but many others do not. India and Vietnam are two examples that immediately come to mind. Some countries will grant you a visa in the airport after you fill out some paperwork, while others require you to apply from outside the country in advance (and waiting periods vary).

“This is done for national security, for whatever reason they can’t make an exception, period,”

They flew from Denver to Dallas without a problem, then were stopped in Dallas. If they can't make an exception, why were they allowed to get on the first plane?

The first plane wasn't leaving the country.

Which comes back to my ongoing objection to airline security implementation in general -- there's no guarantee you won't get stuck in an airport far away from home with no way to get to your destination or back home, because someone halfway to your destination decided to throw a fit over some minor technicality. And in situations where that does happen, there's also no guarantee you won't become a "suspected terrorist" if, in the heat of the moment, you object to any part of the process a little too loudly. It's little consolation that that's rare if you're the 1 in 10,000+ whose luck just ran out.

Can survive being crushed, sat on, folded, spun, submerged in water, thrown up on, run over by a car, heated to several hundred degrees, frozen to near absolute zero, exposed to intense radiation, and the data stored on paper can be read with no special tools under a wide variety of environmental conditions, or using simple tools like a 'lens', can be read at distances of up to several hundred feet or more.

RFID

Can be used with a scanner that has a range of only a few inches. If any part of the chip is damaged, the data is irretrievable. Costs more than paper. Can be destroyed in everyday use, including sitting on it, folding it, getting it wet, etc.

Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

Even without the RFID, I've watched them deny kids onto flights because their passport wasn't signed. It was interesting to watch the mother explain that her kids could barely write their name let alone be expected to have a signature that would ever be useful for identification. They finally made her hold her kids' hands so that each of them could sign their names.
The whole system is flawed and RFID is just another expensive layer on top of it. I would have hoped RFID was implemented more like magnetic strips on credit cards. When they work, it speeds things up. When they don't, every business has an imprint machine or a place to type in your credit card number in their computer so they can still take your money. I guess there is more incentive in the case of credit cards to actually get it right for the consumer though.

When I was 12, I went to the Post Office to pick up a money order that was in my name. All I had on me for ID was my French Passport (not being a US citizen at the time). The lady said she couldn't take a foreign passport as proof of ID, and asked me to provide my driver's license.

I mentally facepalmed, and informed her I was 12, and unlikely to have a driver's license anytime in the near future.

Can be used with a scanner that has a range of only a few inches. If any part of the chip is damaged, the data is irretrievable. Costs more than paper. Can be destroyed in everyday use, including sitting on it, folding it, getting it wet, etc.

Contains electric circuits that can fail, rendering the RFID useless, even with no abuse.

Which one would you pick for storing sensitive information which, if made inaccessible, has the potential to prevent you from ever seeing your loved ones, your home, or any of your possessions again?

Neither?

Even if you intentionally light your passport on fire and fling it into the U.S. Embassy, you still have the right to return if you're a U.S. Citizen. (admittedly, probably after at least a few days in jail for lighting something on fire and flinging it into an occupied building.) I went to the Chzech republic once with some other students from the U.S., while we were there one of my friends made with the stupid and agreed to leave her passport with her hotel as a security deposit (do NOT do this). Naturally when she tried to retrieve it her passport was gone (stolen, they are valuable).

Was she "prevented from ever seeing [her] loved ones, [her] home, or any of [her] possessions again?" Of course not, she went to the U.S. Embassy. They harangued her for being stupid and issued her a temporary passport to get back to Italy with. Once we were back in Italy the U.S. Embassy in Rome issued her a new permanent passport. Getting her Italian Visa replaced was harder.

When you travel outside the U.S., you need to accept that you may not be able to keep to your schedule, plan for it. Book all your flights with a single airline (so that when Airline A screws up and you miss a connecting flight its their problem, not yours). Leave some vacation time (a day or two) on the return side of your trip. Don't try to sneak pot back out of Amsterdam (no, seriously, wtf are you thinking?). You have to take precautions.

When you travel outside the U.S., you need to accept that you may not be able to keep to your schedule, plan for it.

Christ, yes. I remain thoroughly amazed that people expect to fly half way around the world, do something and fly back all within a 2 hour window of time. Historically those trips (if they were possible at all) took months or years and almost always were subject to delays perhaps lasting weeks.

Slow down America! Enjoy the ride. The mess will still be there when you get back.

There are 2 interests competing in this situation. One is you, wanting to avoid trouble. The other is the government, wanting to know you are who you claim to be. Paper doesn't have a challenge-and-response system. The government wants secure documents establishing you are actually the owner of the passport, and that the something-you-have is genuine, and they make all the rules.

I was traveling alone, but I've gotten similar crap from a AA rep with a bur up his butt or something. This was pre-chip passport, but my well traveled 9 1/2 year old passport was slightly bowed from being placed in my pocket. He said basically the same thing as the article, that it shows a disrespect for the document and that I should keep it in a necklace type holder or somewhere else other than my back pocket. This same passport was never questioned by a government official in any country I traveled too. I waited for the douche to go on break and then proceeded to check in without incident by another agent. He would probably be one to charge folks an excessive baggage fee if one of their bags was 1 oz over regulation as well.

There seems to be some sort of fetish for 'respect', most commonly(but not entirely exclusively) exhibited by those people who've never deserved a dose of it in their lives. I don't know exactly why this crops up; but it definitely does. It's bad enough when those people demand respect for themselves regardless of desert and sometimes by force; but when they give up on that and hitch their self worth to a god or a flag or something they become truly insufferable.

The travel guy they interview has one thing right and one thing wrong...

Not all passports have RFID chips in them. That didn't start until 2006. Mine has no such chip in it. No problems at all with it. Even without the RFID chip, the passport is machine readable (that's the barcode on the picture page). It won't be until 2016 that all US passports--that is, when the old ones all expire, finally--will be biometric/RFID. So I don't see why they should refuse someone who's RFID chip doesn't work, given that other people will be allowed on without one too.

But he is right that the passport is property of the US government. It says that in the document somewhere.

A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal. Delta didn't care and made him change his flight (and pay to do so). He then had to pay a second time to change it back once he got to China. His CC refunded the fees, but it was still unnecessary hassle.

The major issue: airlines are NOT immigrations officials! They do have some responsibility, of course. They don't want people getting on planes without passports, only to have them sent back home immediately. Still, on judgment calls like validity of visa and travel plans, they should not have final say in the matter. That's not their job. They don't always get it right.

The family may have made a mistake not immediately calling for a customs agent to get involved. The airline could easily take them downstairs, where there's dozens of immigrations officers, any of whom could make the judgment. There's also probably a supervisor there who gets final say. Why were those people not called in to decide the validity of the passport?

A colleague of mine had major problems with Delta and his visa. He was going to China, and had a return flight 60 days after he left. His visa was only good to stay 30 days. They refused to let him on the plane. Of course, he had planned to go to Hong Kong after 28 days, stay for 3, and then return to mainland China (possible with his multiple entry visa), all of which is fully legal. Delta didn't care and made him change his flight (and pay to do so). He then had to pay a second time to change it back once he got to China. His CC refunded the fees, but it was still unnecessary hassle.

Most countries that require visas also require a return ticket already purchased. This is done to help ensure that the person is not going to overstay their visa. If an airline sends someone without a visa, an invalid/expired visa, or if that person is in any way denied entry, the airline is usually fined and must return the passenger. And these are not small fines. They can be as high as $25,000 per person. And the cost of the return flight is of course not paid for by the country, the airline/passeng

I know this will go unheeded because it's what people don't want to hear, but the US Government had nothing to do with this case.

The child was denied clearance by an airline employee, not an actual customs agent. And the person who claims that a damaged passport is "disrespect" to the privilege of holding a passport is some whackjob I've never heard of who owns a small business that specializes in... wait for it... passports and visas! The online ratings for this guy's business classify him as a Grade A jackass, as well.

This is an overblown, almost-manufactured attempt at criticizing the government for its national security policies. It's really much more akin to blaming the local beef farmer because my steak was overcooked.

I disagree, the airline decided it could act like a government agency and validate a passport. A passport is a government document to used BY "THE GOVERNMENT"! When a airline decides it does not like your Drivers License, or SS card or your passport, well that is really outside the realm of business.

Apparently people (including the submitter) are not RTFA very well.
FTA

Little Kye’s passport has a crease on the back cover, which Gosnell says came from him accidentally sitting on the passport.
His passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

The child's passport was NOT denied, it was Kyle (presumably the father) who had the "overall weathered and worn" passport that was denied. It's hard to believe that his passport was so weathered and worn that it couldn't be read so this is probably still an issue of an airline employee with a stick up his ass but TFS is completely wrong and trolling everyone who comments on here enraged. TFA doesn't even say that the RFID chip had ANYTHING to do with his being denied. Parent is absolutely right that the person who is quoted has NOTHING to do with this situation. The local Fox team reporting on this probably Googled someone in the Denver area (not the Dallas area where this whole f'ing thing actually happened) and asked this nutjob for a quote for their story.
PLEASE RTFA before commenting. Slashdot editors, PLEASE edit these retarded submissions before they get our collective panties in a wad.

From TFS: The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

"The claim has been made", eh? Citation needed. Who made this claim? I RTFA and that line does not appear. I watched the video linked in TFA and that line was not spoken.

If this is really a statement from someone in the US Government, then who said it, and when?

My blood began to boil at the thought of someone in government saying such a thing. If this quote is true, this person is saying a passport is more precious than the flag of the USA, because there are at least some circumstances where it is legal to destroy a flag. But the whole passive voice thing and the total lack of attribution makes me wonder if this isn't just a made-up quote.

If it's for real, give us a real cite. Let's get a tidal wave of negative publicity pointed at the person who said this.

If it's not for real, let's not get all excited over nothing.

P.S. TFA quoted some guy as saying that the government has "no reason in the world" to let you fly if the passport has a damaged chip. He likened it to a passport with the photo cut out. But I don't really know exactly who this guy is or why we should give his opinion any weight. I don't know what the actual government policy is on a passport that is clearly readable, with numbers and barcodes and such all intact but a damaged chip; it's hard to imagine that this is the actual official government policy. And if it is, I'd like a citation of that, please.

The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

Well, that's a stupid fucking claim. Saying that one should respect an easily (relatively) replaceable inanimate object or lose a fundamental right is just the most pants-on-head stupid thing I've ever heard.

It's the kind of thing someone too stupid to understand abstract ideas views the world: "Oh, they want to burn the flag, that means they hate America" while being all the while unaware that prohibiting the exercise of free speech like flag burning is anathema to the founding principles of the US.

It's also stupid on its face - what possible benefit is gained from RFID other than convenience for immigration officials, and in what universe does that minor convenience outweigh the rights of citizens to travel or not?

Or if you prefer statements made to the public of how the government interpretes the law:

Every United States citizen is entitled to a U.S. passport provided that they, or an adult acting on a child's behalf, comply with all applicable requirements, and that there is no statutory or regulatory reason to deny the passport.

The word entitled is used because travel is a right and has been recognized as a right as long as rights have been recognized. The right to travel is one of those rights covered under the 9th amendment.

The chip in the passport is just one of the many security features of the new passport. If the chip fails, the passport remains a valid travel document until its expiration date. You will continue to be processed by the port-of-entry officer as if you had a passport without a chip.

The claim has been made that breaking the chip in the passport shows that you disrespect the privilege of owning a passport, and that the airport was justified in denying this child from using the passport.

The last time I left the US I spent four weeks hiking around in the Dolomites and nearby. Everything I had was in my backpack, I stayed at night in mountain rifugios and hiked around most of every day. I had my passport on my person somewhere at every moment, because what else was I going to do with it? I fell a couple of times, nothing serious, but I did get a few scrapes and bruises, and I'll admit that I was a bit free in tossing my pack (which contained my passport) around.

Now, if the RFID chip can be broken by a child sitting on it, there is an approximately 0% chance that mine would have survived that trip had I had the misfortune of having one in my passport. There would have been no way to avoid it, other than putting the passport in a box filled with bubble wrap and packing peanuts or something else equally absurd. Had I been staying in a hotel and wandering around a town I would have (as per Italian law) left it with the hotel. But this wasn't that sort of trip. There was no way, sort of building some sort of portable armored and padded shrine, that I would have been able to "respect" the passport enough to avoid wrecking the RFID chip, if it really is so easy to break.

If the chip is that much less resilient than the paper that the passports are printed on, they need to come up with something better.

Apply little reading comprehension: It was Kyle, the FATHER, whose passport was denied. NOT the kid's.

OP:

"... they chose to deny a young child access to the flight, in essence denying the whole family."

FTA:

"Little Kye’s passport has a crease on the back cover, which Gosnell says came from him accidentally sitting on the passport.
His passport was questioned, but not denied. It was Kyle Gosnell’s that was the real problem. It has a small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn."

If we're going to infer things then let's infer that the dad's passport was old-school and didn't even have an RFID tag in it since it was described as "[having a] small crease on the back cover, and is overall weathered and worn.

51.6 Damaged, mutilated or altered passport.Any passport which has been materially changed in physical appearance or composition, or contains a damaged, defective or otherwise nonfunctioning electronic chip, or which includes unauthorized changes, obliterations, entries or photographs, or has observable wear and tear that renders it unfit for further use as a travel document may be invalidated. [ Note that this says MAY, and more to the point does not say IS... so a revocation judgement has to be made by.... ]

51.4 Validity of passports.(h) Invalidity. A United States passport is invalid whenever:(1) The passport has been formally revoked by the Department; or [... ONLY IF, in the judgement of the State Dept, the mutilation warrants revocation ](2) The Department has registered a passport reported either in writing or by telephone to the Department of State, or in writing to a U.S. passport agency or to a diplomatic or consular post abroad as lost or stolen.(3) The Department has sent a written notice to the bearer at the bearer's last known address that the passport has been invalidated because the Department has not received the applicable fees.

Improper visas or clearly wrong authorizations is one thing, but the intrinsic validity of a properly issued passport to its proper owner is clearly not a decision delegated to airline staff. That judgement is for immigrations or passport officials to make, not some Jetway jockeys who've mistaken themselves for State Department employees. Seems to me that a lawsuit for injunctive relief is perfectly appropriate -- specifically to prevent AA or other airline staff from making legal declarations about the invalidity of a passport. And it's not like this would be burdensome, either: If Jetway Jane sees that you don't posses a passport or a visa for a destination that requires one, you've violated the terms on your ticket, and will be denied boarding because it's a ticketing issue. But If Jetway Joe thinks your passport might be invalid, he should call the resident officials at the airport to make a determination -- not try to impersonate them.

My current passport does not have a chip in it and is good for another year. It is also pretty damn beat up. It has stickers on the outside that French immigration has put on it. It has been bent and tweaked by a variety of national border control types, and no one has ever applied a visa stamp gently. It has also spent a lot of time in my pocket, because nothing says "Tourist here please rob me" like one of those dorky things hanging around your neck. As a result of being in my pocket, it has gotten sat on, sweated on, bent, etc. In short, it looks like the passport of someone who travels a lot, which I guess they don't see a lot at American Airlines in Dallas. I respect my passport enough that I don't leave it in hotel safes, don't hang it around my neck to get snatched, and generally try to keep it from getting stolen, which has resulted in it looking weathered and worn. The airline employee in Dallas is a tool.

You need to read the MRZ (machine-readable section of the page with the photo) of the passport as the key to unlock the encryption of the chip. You can't get that with it closed (unless you already know the owner's name, birth date, passport number, etc.).